191–200 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're old racist terms against Welsh and Romani people
I've read the Welsh being described as loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls, but I cannot confirm its truth or otherwise.
It's a nice reminder to stay away from the gambling industry. Any company that doesn't play by the same rules as you, doesn't deserve your business. Try voiding a bet you made due to your algorithm error once. I'm sure they would just laugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't. It's still a mistake. A programmer could have dropped a digit just as easily as a person failed to properly tape a digit to a window.
When you go to buy that car where the digit fell off the price, the sales person will tell you that the erroneous price is wrong, and tell you the correct one. If for some reason the sales person does not do this and goes through with the sale at the erroneous price, sucks to be them. They had their chance to correct it and they failed to do so. This is the same situation, except instead of a sales person, it’s a com…
In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is this a "newly found error" in that case and how is it "blaming the customer"? It sounds to me like the potential for error has always been there and nothing about the assignment of blame has changed whatsoever between the two examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of places have consumer protection laws about price signage and labeling which take precedence over contract law.
I was under the impression that this was the case in America and Australia as well, but it's possible it is only true for the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine if they had to honor, they would make it priority number one resolving those bugs, and make changes to make the bugs more apparent to people in the process. If they don't have to pay, there isn't much of an incentive to prioritize the fixes, especially since I imagine if the bugs are in the favor of the company they can make a lot of money.
I'm sure it is already a high priority, but it is a system built by humans, and it will always have mistakes. What if they were being forced to pay out 82 million instead of thousand? What about 82 billion? There should be clear cut laws surrounding clear errors, like there are in most places, and ones like this should not be forced to pay out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you go to buy that car where the digit fell off the price, the sales person will tell you that the erroneous price is wrong, and tell you the correct one. If for some reason the sales person does not do this and goes through with the sale at the erroneous price, sucks to be them. They had their chance to correct it and they failed to do so. This is the same situation, except instead of a sales person, it’s a com…
> this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is this a "newly found…
1. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer pays the corrected price.
2. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer changes their mind.
3. The error is not corrected before the sale and the customer pays the erroneous price.
Companies are trying to change a 3 into a 1 by blaming computers and saying the error should have been clear to the customer, when in fact it’s their own fault for not noticing the error before completing the transaction.
Yeah, a quick read of the relevant regs tells me Fanduel is gonna lose this one (Unless i've missed something)[1,2] The law on this is pretty clear, and they can't unilaterally decide not to apply the gaming regulations of the state, or change them through their contracts. (They can decide not to do business in states they don't like the regulations of course) BTW, somewhat hilariously, the part they "..."'d is just…
But these are still contracts, subject to the basics of contract law. Contracts are not meant to be gotcha moments where one side leverages the mistakes of another. Look to the booking of flights. A small error here and there on price will be enforced. But a monumental error leveraged by people who would otherwise not fly will nullify the contract (ie hundreds of people suddenly booking first class travel London-Joha…
Yes they should honor it or else thy have 2 options.
1. Close business 2. Request a bailout.
Someone more competent should take their place. Fanduel is not above the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine if they had to honor, they would make it priority number one resolving those bugs, and make changes to make the bugs more apparent to people in the process. If they don't have to pay, there isn't much of an incentive to prioritize the fixes, especially since I imagine if the bugs are in the favor of the company they can make a lot of money.
I'm sure it is already a high priority, but it is a system built by humans, and it will always have mistakes. What if they were being forced to pay out 82 million instead of thousand? What about 82 billion? There should be clear cut laws surrounding clear errors, like there are in most places, and ones like this should not be forced to pay out.
Otherwise there is no honor and incentive for them. Bookies have to live by their honor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is so obviously a genuine mistake that some dude is trying to capitalise on and make a big media hoo-hah out of If the situation were reversed, and due to a genuine mistake FanDuel showed that the customer owed the company the money, do you think they would simply accept that it was a mistake and fix it? If I had to bet I would guess that they'd attempt to collect the money using any means necessary just like the…
Maybe, maybe not. And if that were the story we'd be having a different discussion. My points still stand though. I don't think a company should have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars because a software bug resulted in a couple of extra zeros somewhere. Do you? Quick edit: A thought experiment. What if the bug created odds orders of magnitude higher than this? Should FanDuel be forced into bankruptcy from the…